Re: Blocking child pornography exits

["Josh McFarlane" <josh.mcfarlane@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/21/07, Ron Wireman <ronwireman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Unfortunately, this 'separation of concerns' you're a proponent of doesn't
> work in the real world.  In the same way that you can't insert a piece of
> metal into someone with a high calibre rifle without grievously injuring
> then, you can't run a completely open anonymous router network without being
> a conduit for child abuse and other evils.  For any action, there may be
> many possible results, and it seems to me that if one of the evils is
> overwhelming, it is artificially hedging the issue to say you have no
> responsibility for it.  If tor can't be designed in a way that strongly
> discourages or prevents people from using it for evil, it shouldn't exist.

You're injecting morality into something that does not have it, and
badly at that

By your arguments, cameras should not exist. They allow someone to
take a possibly offensive picture of someone else and then do whatever
they want with it. The overwhelming evil of someone using a camera
means that since camera makers don't design cameras in a way that
stronger discourages or prevents people from using them for evil, we
should not have cameras at all.

By your logic, we should throw away all of the technology that we
currently have. Most technologies are not designed to prevent evil use
of itself. There are laws and other preventions in place to prevent
this evil. The technology itself is not designed for evil. Content
filtering has no place in Tor code.